Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Puneet Kumar Dugal vs Corporate Affairs on 25 March, 2026
1
Item No.25(C-VI)
O.A. No.81/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.81/2024
Order reserved on : 25.02.2026
Order pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
PUNEET KUMAR DUGGAL, Aged about 51 years,
S/o. Sh. Kulbhushan Raj Duggal,
Official Liquidator, Chennai, (under Suspension),
Presently attached to the Olo. Office of Director
General of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Corporate
Affairs, Kota House Annexe, 1, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110011.
R/o. 722, Skylark Apartments, Plot No.35,
Sector-6, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
... APPLICANT
(By Advocate : Shri Anish Dhingra and Shri Mohit
Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Union Of India, Through
Its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi- 110 011.
2. The Director General of Corporate Affairs,
Kota House Annexe, 1, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi- 110011.
3. Under Secretary(Vigilance ),
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
'A' Wing, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi- 110011.
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
... RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate : Shri Bijendra Singh Sharma)
2
Item No.25(C-VI)
O.A. No.81/2024
ORDER
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the Office Order dated 25.10.2023 to the limited extent whereby, while extending his suspension for a further period of 180 days, the respondents have directed maintenance of status quo with regard to subsistence allowance, thereby denying enhancement from 50% to 75% after expiry of the initial period of 90 days. The present OA has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-
a) To quash the Impugned Order dated 25.10.2023 to the extent the same has contained the direction of status quo on the payment of subsistence allowance to the Applicant during the period of extended suspension on the ground of being contrary to the provisions of law;
b) Further direct the Respondents to pay the enhanced subsistence allowance to the Applicant @ 75% during the period of extended period of suspension on and from the date of expiry of the initial period of 90 days of suspension; and
c) To pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
2. The facts, in brief, as emerging from the pleadings RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by on record, are that the applicant, while working under RACHNA KAPOOR the respondent department, was placed under deemed suspension consequent upon his arrest in a criminal 3 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 case. The suspension, initially operative for a period of 90 days, came to be reviewed and extended by the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 for a further period of 180 days. While extending the suspension, the respondents, acting on the recommendation of the Review Committee, directed that the subsistence allowance payable to the applicant shall continue at the same rate as earlier, thereby denying any enhancement beyond 50% even after expiry of the statutory period of three months.
3. The grievance of the applicant is confined to this limited aspect. It is his case that the impugned action is contrary to the mandate of Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), inasmuch as the respondents have failed to record any finding that the prolongation of suspension is attributable to him and have not assigned any cogent or discernible reasons for denying enhancement of subsistence allowance. It is further contended that the denial is based solely on the gravity of allegations and pendency of criminal proceedings, which are wholly extraneous and irrelevant considerations under the statutory scheme. The applicant has also urged Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR that there is no material on record to indicate that the delay in continuation of suspension is attributable to 4 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 him, particularly when the investigation had not culminated in filing of a charge-sheet at the relevant point of time.
4. The respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the Original Application contending that enhancement of subsistence allowance is not automatic and lies within the discretion of the competent authority. It is submitted that having regard to the seriousness of allegations and pendency of investigation by the CBI, the competent authority, upon recommendation of the Review Committee, has taken a conscious decision to maintain status quo in subsistence allowance, which does not call for interference.
5. The respondents have also raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Original Application on the ground that the applicant has approached this Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of representation and without waiting for the statutory period of six months as contemplated under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is contended that the applicant had submitted a representation on 03.11.2023 seeking enhancement of subsistence Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR allowance, and the present Original Application having 5 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 been filed on 03.01.2024, i.e., prior to expiry of six months, is premature and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is necessary to examine the scope of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant has availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules. The use of the expression "ordinarily" in the provision is significant and indicates that the requirement is directory and not absolute. The provision does not impose a rigid or inflexible bar, but confers discretion upon the Tribunal to entertain an application in appropriate cases, particularly where a final order affecting the rights of the applicant has already been passed or where insistence on exhaustion of alternative remedies would result in undue hardship or delay.
7. In the present case, the applicant has not approached this Tribunal merely on the basis of an undecided representation, but has specifically Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR challenged the Office Order dated 25.10.2023, which is 6 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 a final order determining his entitlement with regard to subsistence allowance. The cause of action, therefore, arises from the said order itself. The pendency of a representation or the fact that a period of six months has not elapsed from the date of representation cannot operate as a bar to the maintainability of the Original Application in such circumstances.
8. Moreover, the grievance of the applicant pertains to a continuing deprivation in the nature of subsistence allowance, and any insistence on waiting for the expiry of six months would result in prolonging the hardship faced by the applicant. In such a situation, the discretion vested in this Tribunal under Section 20 is required to be exercised in favour of entertaining the application.
9. In view of the above, the objection raised by the respondents regarding non-maintainability of the Original Application on account of non-exhaustion of remedies and non-completion of the six-month period is rejected.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR and perused the material on record, it becomes 7 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 necessary to examine the issue as to whether the applicant is entitled to enhancement of subsistence allowance after expiry of the initial period of 90 days, and whether the decision of the respondents in not granting such enhancement is sustainable in law in the absence of reasons. In this context, it is required to consider the statutory framework governing subsistence allowance. Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a) provides that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the competent authority may increase the amount of subsistence allowance by a suitable amount not exceeding 50% of the initial subsistence allowance, provided that the prolongation of suspension is not attributable to the Government servant, and further that reasons for such decision are recorded in writing.
11. The applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahabir Prasad Yadav v. Lakshmibai College, 272 (2020) DLT 270, wherein it has been categorically held that the discretion vested in the competent authority under Fundamental Rule 53 is not unfettered and Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR must be exercised on objective considerations. It has been observed that the authority is under an obligation 8 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 to examine whether the delay in continuation of suspension is attributable to the employee and to record reasons in support of its decision, and that mere continuation of suspension or pendency of proceedings cannot by itself justify denial of enhancement. It has been observed that;
"The Rule, therefore, envisages enhancement of the Subsistence Allowance after a period of three months with a cautious caveat that where the employee is responsible for causing any delay in conclusion of the Departmental proceedings or the criminal case pending against him, the employer would be entitled to deviate and refuse enhancement. The Rule also mandates that the Competent Authority is required to give specific reasons that demonstrate that the delinquent was responsible for causing delay in the proceedings, in case it seeks to deny enhancement of Subsistence Allowance to 75%. "
12. The aforesaid principle, as relied upon by the applicant, clearly postulates that where the competent authority seeks to deny enhancement of subsistence allowance after expiry of the initial period, it is under a specific obligation to record reasons demonstrating that the prolongation of suspension is attributable to the conduct of the delinquent employee. The requirement is not merely procedural but goes to the Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR root of the exercise of discretion under Fundamental 9 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 Rule 53, inasmuch as the denial of enhancement must be founded on a conscious determination, supported by reasons, that the employee has contributed to the delay in the proceedings. In the absence of such a finding, the decision to withhold enhancement would be arbitrary and unsustainable, as it would amount to exercise of discretion without reference to the mandatory statutory parameters.
13. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the impugned order dated 25.10.2023, while extending the suspension of the applicant, merely directs maintenance of status quo with regard to subsistence allowance without recording any finding as to whether the prolongation of suspension is attributable to the applicant. The order also does not disclose any reasons for denying enhancement of subsistence allowance as contemplated under Fundamental Rule 53. The scheme of Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a) makes it incumbent upon the competent authority to apply its mind to the question whether the delay in continuation of suspension is attributable to the Government Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR servant and to record reasons while deciding whether to increase or otherwise vary the subsistence 10 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 allowance. The existence of such consideration is a sine qua non for valid exercise of discretion under the Rule. The absence of any such consideration in the impugned order renders the decision legally vulnerable.
14. The justification sought to be advanced by the respondents on the basis of gravity of allegations and pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be accepted as a valid ground for denying enhancement of subsistence allowance. The statutory provision does not contemplate seriousness of charges as a relevant factor for determining the quantum of subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is intended to enable the employee to sustain himself during suspension and cannot be used as a punitive tool.
15. It is further evident that the competent authority has proceeded to act upon the recommendation of the Review Committee without independently examining the requirements of Fundamental Rule 53. The extension of suspension under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and determination of subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53 operate in distinct fields and require independent application of Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR 11 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 mind. The impugned order reflects a conflation of these two distinct considerations.
16. The attempt of the respondents to justify the impugned order also cannot cure the defect in the order, as it is well settled that an order must stand or fall on the reasons contained therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons subsequently.
17. The applicant has specifically contended that there is no material on record to indicate that the delay in continuation of suspension is attributable to him. These aspects go to the root of the matter and ought to have been considered by the competent authority, but the impugned order is conspicuously silent in this regard.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the enhancement of subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a) is not a matter of right but lies within the discretion of the competent authority to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case. This Tribunal is, therefore, not adjudicating upon the Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR entitlement of the applicant to enhancement of subsistence allowance. However, it is equally well 12 Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024 settled that such discretion must be exercised in a fair, reasonable and informed manner, and the decision, whether to grant or deny enhancement, must be supported by cogent reasons reflecting due application of mind.
19. In the present case, the impugned order dated 25.10.2023, to the extent it directs maintenance of status quo in subsistence allowance, does not disclose any consideration of the relevant factors under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), nor does it record any reasons for denying enhancement. The order thus suffers from non-application of mind and absence of reasons, and is liable to be interfered with on this limited ground.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.10.2023 is set aside to the aforesaid limited extent. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for enhancement of subsistence allowance strictly in accordance with Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), by passing a reasoned and speaking order, taking into account all relevant factors including attribution of delay, stage of proceedings and other Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR attendant circumstances.
13Item No.25(C-VI) O.A. No.81/2024
21. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim for enhancement, and it shall be open to the competent authority to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
22. The Original Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J) 'rk' Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR